RENTAL Q&A

Landlord's short notice not enough for a rent hike

January 15, 2006|By Robert Boron, Special to the Tribune

Q. I have lived in the same condominium apartment for several years. I have been an excellent tenant, with a month-to-month tenancy. A few weeks ago, I received a notice from the landlord that she was raising the rent, effective Jan. 1, by $75. Shouldn't I be given at least 30 days' notice before the new rate kicks in? Also, is there a maximum increase allowed under the law?

A. You should be given at least 30 days' written notice, and the notice you received probably isn't effective to increase the rent.

Your month-to-month tenancy in essence creates a new contract for each 30-day period. If the landlord wants to terminate the tenancy, or change the contract for the ensuing tenancies, he must serve written notice at least 30 days before the expiration of the monthly term. It is not the service during any 30-day period, but rather the service of at least 30 days, ending on the last day of the monthly term, which makes the notice effective. Therefore, if your landlord wanted your new rental rate to be effective on Jan. 1, the notice would have had to have been served upon you no later than Dec. 1, .

That 30-day time period would give you the opportunity to explore your options and to determine whether you want to remain in the apartment under the new rental schedule.

There is no statutory limit on the amount of a rent increase which can be imposed, so long as the increase is for a legitimate business reason. A landlord cannot unreasonably increase the rent to discourage you from remaining in the apartment, or in retaliation for your request for services in connection with your tenancy. However, a rent increase intended to ensure the coverage of costs and to ensure a margin of profit is permitted by the law, even if the increase is significant.

Under your circumstances, if you want to remain in the apartment, talk to your landlord about the late notice. You might want to negotiate an increase of the rent in February, because if the landlord served notice now, the new rent couldn't become effective until March 1.

The landlord is clearly interested in keeping you as a tenant, because the notice was served to increase the rent, rather than to terminate your tenancy. That might be because you are a good tenant, and it might be because the landlord then knows that once you are out, the apartment may remain vacant for a month or two until a new tenant can be found. That would mean an additional loss to the landlord.

Knowing that the landlord faces a loss of income if you were to move out, the landlord might be willing to negotiate a lesser rent. Having you pay your rent for the entire year would probably still yield more income to the landlord than having you move out and having to market the apartment.

Working out a compromise in terms of the rent hike and the refurbishment of the apartment saves both you and the landlord money in the long run, and allows both of you to keep a good relationship. The alternative is that you move out, but then neither you nor the landlord will have any guarantees as to the quality of the next landlord-tenant relationship.

----------

Robert A. Boron, a Chicago attorney who specializes in leasing matters, writes about landlord and tenant issues for the Tribune. Questions to him can be addressed to Rental Q&A, Real Estate section, Chicago Tribune, 435 N. Michigan Ave., 4th floor, Chicago, IL 60611. He also can be reached by e-mail at realestate@tribune.com. Sorry, but he cannot make personal replies.